From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Joel Mahoney <joelmahoney@gmail.com>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fatal: bad revision 'HEAD'
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:31:37 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090813023137.GA17358@coredump.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vab24ve97.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 03:49:56PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> When doing a "pull --rebase", we check to make sure that the index and
> working tree are clean. The index-clean check compares the index against
> HEAD. The test erroneously reports dirtiness if we don't have a HEAD yet.
>
> In such an "unborn branch" case, by definition, a non-empty index won't
> be based on whatever we are pulling down from the remote, and will lose
> the local change. Just check if $GIT_DIR/index exists and error out.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Looks sane to me, but see below.
> + # On an unborn branch
> + if test -f "$GIT_DIR/index"
> + then
> + die "updating an unborn branch with changes added to the index"
> + fi
I had a brief moment where I thought this might not actually be
sufficient. That is, can somebody create an unborn branch in an existing
repo (e.g., because they want an alternate project root) in such a way
that they have an index, but it is empty? In which case we should be
actually checking for index emptiness instead of existence.
I.e., I have done in the past (but not frequently):
git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/to-be-born
in an existing repository to create a new root. But I don't think we
really need to worry about that case:
1. It is somewhat crazy and rare in the first place. Even more crazy
and rare would be to "git pull --rebase" immediately afterwards.
2. If you _did_ have an index, either:
2a. You want to keep it, in which case your check is sane.
2b. You want to start fresh, in which case your next step would be
be "rm -f .git/index".
The only way this check would not be OK is is if you did something like:
git symbolic-ref HEAD refs/heads/new-branch
git ls-files | xargs git rm --cached
git pull --rebase ...
which just seems crazy.
So I think I have convinced myself that what you have is fine, but I
just wanted a sanity check.
-Peff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-13 2:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-09 21:15 fatal: bad revision 'HEAD' Joel Mahoney
2009-08-10 1:18 ` Jeff King
[not found] ` <09EE2E57-626B-4686-A6DD-3B8DF1BC3FE2@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20090811015615.GA8383@coredump.intra.peff.net>
[not found] ` <C44788EB-02BA-4D69-8091-9E97827223A0@gmail.com>
2009-08-12 3:27 ` Jeff King
2009-08-12 7:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-12 7:58 ` Jeff King
2009-08-12 22:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-13 2:31 ` Jeff King [this message]
2009-08-13 4:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-13 4:38 ` Jeff King
2009-08-13 5:02 ` Joel Mahoney
2009-08-13 5:10 ` Jeff King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090813023137.GA17358@coredump.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=joelmahoney@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).